Martin Scorsese really loves 3-D … a lot. Since Scorsese’s Oscar nomination for “Hugo,” filmed in 3-D, the director said he plans to shoot all future films in 3-D.
In fact, he’s so enthralled with the technology Scorsese said, given the chance, he would have shot all films “post-‘Raging Bull” in the format at a CinemaCon panel Wednesday.
Right. This is great and all, but 3-D is so two years ago. The director should set his sights on something revolutionizing such as shooting films at 48fps like Peter Jackson … on second thought, maybe not.
Look, Scorsese. We get it. We see the appeal of 3-D. “Avatar” was amazing.
Scorsese is like a kid in a candy store discovering 3-D for the first time. 3-D movies were a novelty when “Avatar” came out in 2009. The films brought back a nostalgia from when we picked up cardboard glasses and looked at moving images on paper.
Of course, there are some films that are extraordinary in 3-D (again, “Avatar,” “How to Train Your Dragon”); however, with the amount of quick 2D to 3-D conversions (a la Disney and for a quick cash grab,) 3-D has become an eyesore at times.
The result shows at theatres as 3-D films haven’t fared as well at the box office since 2010.
In 2010, 3-D revenue from the box office dropped drastically from “Alice in Wonderland ($80m+) in March to “Cats & Dogs” ($6.9m).
Last year, at least 30 films were made in 3-D, the majority of them being sequels. The films accounted for 16.7% of total box office revenue ($1.7 billion) down from more than $2 billion in 2010.
Bottom line, 3-D is good for some things (i.e. original concepts), but kills others. Needless to say, making every single one of your future films in 3-D would kill a good thing.
In the meantime, get ready to shell out more for a Scorsese flick. We hope Leonardo DiCaprio likes 3-D.
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.